• Korean Journal of Heritage: History & Science
• /
• v.49 no.4
• /
• pp.96-113
• /
• 2016

The observation of the classic plant name 'Hwe', that is to be discussed in this thesis, must be primarily conducted in folk plant research made through old documents. Diverse information such as the characteristics, method of use, and distribution of plants is scattered in old documents. However, reviews of classic plant names should be made to use such information. This is because information on plants can only be used after thorough verifications are made of the plant names. 'Hwe' is interpreted as various meanings in Korea but it is mostly used to mean fir, old pine tree, and cypress. However, it is not known by what standards such interpretations have been made. In particular, 'Hwe' is interpreted at the discretion of the translator in classic translations, so direct quotations from these lead to further errors. Therefore, items in classic plant names must be reviewed again. Why is 'Hwe' interpreted in various ways as a plant name and according to what standards should it be interpreted? This study was conducted with these questions. Also, the significance of this study is placed in the setting of guidelines for the interpretation of 'Hwe' so that classic plant names can be properly interpreted and information on plants can be accurately secured.

• Korean Journal of Plant Taxonomy
• /
• v.47 no.4
• /
• pp.328-335
• /
• 2017

The Korean medicinal plant name written in Chinese script, Jingyo, is somewhat confusingly used in the Korean modern literature. This name was assigned to at least three species, with examples being Gentiana macrophylla, Aconitum pseudolaeve, and Justicia procumbens. To clarify the taxonomic identity of Jingyo, these names were examined based on the Chinese classics and Korean classics and compared them with the modern flora of both China and Korea. In China, Jingyo was considered as Justicia gendarussa or Gentiana macrophylla. In Korea, Jingyo was considered as A. pseudolaeve or J. procumbens. However, it was concluded that Jingyo is not distributed on the Korean Peninsula. In addition, although the Hangeul name Jinbeom was the result of the misreading of the Chinese script Jinbong, another Chinese term for Jingyo, this name is used in many modern studies related plant taxonomy. Hence, we also propose Jinbeom as the conserved Hangeul name of A. pseudolaeve.

• Korean Journal of Plant Taxonomy
• /
• v.47 no.2
• /
• pp.154-160
• /
• 2017

The Korean plant names Changpo and Sukchangpo, including their related names Suchangpo and Kyeson, were somewhat confusingly used in both the Korean classics and even now. To clarify these names, the names written in the Chinese classics and the Korean classics were examined closely and compared to those of the modern flora of China and Korea. In the Chinese classics, Changpo and Sukchangpo were considered as conspecific with Acorus calamus, which has leaves with distinct veins, whereas Sukchangpo and Kyeson have leaves without distinct veins and are considered as A. gramineus. However, in the Korean classics, these names have been confusingly used thus far. Sukchangpo and Gyeson were considered as A. gramineus, and Sukchangpo and Changpo were considered as A. calamus, erroneously. Therefore, the following corrections are needed: plants having distinct leaf veins were named Changpo (A. calamus), and plants having vague leaf veins were named Sukchangpo (A. gramineus), and the names of Sukchangpo and Kyeson should be discarded to avoid confusion. In addition, to respond to the Convention on Biological Diversity, we propose a study to clarify the taxonomic identities of the plant names written in Chinese script and an examination of the Korean plant names listed in the Korean classics.

• Korean Journal of Plant Resources
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.225-234
• /
• 2016

To understand the traditional knowledge of botanical taxa in Jeju Island, a diachronic study was carried out by comparing the archaic and modern names of the native plants in Jeju Island. To identify the archaic names of the plants, five old documents (Sejongshillokchiriji, Shinjŭngdonggukyŏjisŭngnam, T'amnaji, Namhwanbangmul and Jejugyerok) that were written during the Joseon Dynasty between the 15^th and 19^th centuries were closely examined. A total of 131 taxa (65 families, 112 genera, 118 species and 13 varieties), 7.3% of the native plants known to be currently present in Jeju Island, was identified. Out of these, 21.4% was the plants found in the southern area. Among the five old documents analyzed for this study, Namhwanbangmul recorded the largest number of plants, 89 taxa. We closely examined the consistency between the modern and archaic names of each plant, and discussed the problems in matching the names of some plants analyzed in this study.

• (The)Study of the Eastern Classic
• /
• no.69
• /
• pp.325-347
• /
• 2017

In order to examine the characteristics of the name of a thing appearing in the "Gugpung(국풍)", it was compared with the name of a thing in "The Korean annotation of the Classic of Odes(시경언해)" We have examined the reason why the names of things in "The Korean annotation of the Classic of Odes(시경언해)" and "Gugpung(국풍)" appear differently in terms of the difference between the purposes of compiling the two books and reflecting the changes in language. "The Korean annotation of the Classic of Odes(시경언해)" does not provide a proper language for the names of flora and fauna that can be easily seen in the collective term of plants or animals or in everyday life. However, in the "Gugpung (국풍)", they also presented their own words. We found the reason for the purpose of compiling the "Gugpung(국풍)". "Gugpung(국풍)" is a book made for women's education. Therefore "Gugpung(국풍)" was made not only to learn the contents but also to learn Chinese character contained in the contents. Consequently, unlike the "The Korean annotation of the Classic of Odes(시경언해)", most of the names of the Korean things are presented Although the names of the native language of "Gugpung(국풍)" and "The Korean annotation of the Classic of Odes(시경언해)" are consistent with each other, many cases have been found that appear differently. In many cases, they reflected the change of the history of the Korean language in the early 17th century, when the "The Korean annotation of the Classic of Odes(시경언해)" was published, and in the early 19th century, when the "Gugpung(국풍)" wind was written.